Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

Malkmus · Jun 21, 2011

dgfred said:
Right, but will he not be without his lawyers? Might slip up or have a spontaneous statement if that is the case.

The article implies he will not have a lawyer, which makes sense I think. He's simply a witness now.

Nova · Jun 21, 2011

dgfred said:
I don't see how either one will be able to confront the other if both guilty.

If one is not guilty, how could they just sit there when the person responsible for them being in jail is right there or could at least let the world know the innocent one was not involved.

I expect fireworks, whether truthful or acting I do not know.

American and British defendants do it all the time. Or risk contempt-of-court citations.

dgfred · Jun 21, 2011

SMK said:
I know. I think you are right. This is not about the truth of that night coming out. It is about maintaining the status quo.

What? The prosecution is going to rush out to destroy the case they have been prosecuting for 3+ years.

Why couldn't someone from the defense side take abou 100 people with them and go look for the keys/knife? What would be a logical reason not to? Even if disputed it is alot better than NOTHING.

dgfred · Jun 21, 2011

Nova said:
American and British defendants do it all the time. Or risk contempt-of-court citations.

I would say 'so what' to that if I was sentenced to 26 years in prison but was innocent.

dgfred · Jun 21, 2011

Malkmus said:
The article implies he will not have a lawyer, which makes sense I think. He's simply a witness now.

What? No lawyer for a witness? :innocent:

SMK · Jun 21, 2011

dgfred said:
So will RG be questioned only about what the inmates claimed he said?If so, it will be pointless. As the article said, "the boy" already says it is a lie.

Will there be any testimony regarding AK and RS involvement in the murder?Beats me, but there should be, extensive cross-examination by the defense.

Why haven't the defense had the knife and keys 'dug up' from where the inmate said they were hidden?Good question. Someone on PMF suggested the keys and knife may now be planted. I doubt the Defense would risk their careers. But they should look and say one way or another.

How will AK act in court, will she confront RG or play the 'victim'?She should stand up and shout, "Black man found; Black man guilty!"

:snooty:

dgfred · Jun 21, 2011

SMK said:
:snooty:

'shout black man found, black man guilty'...... Again??? Just teasing you some :crazy: .

SMK · Jun 21, 2011

dgfred said:
'shout black man found, black man guilty'...... Again??? Just teasing you some :crazy: .

i know, as was I....but it would be funny

Malkmus · Jun 21, 2011

SMK said:
Will there be any testimony regarding AK and RS involvement in the murder?Beats me, but there should be, extensive cross-examination by the defense.

This where things could get crazy. If Rudy is cross-examined about AK and RS's involvement that night he might be forced to explain a highly contrived scenario in which Amanda and Raf came over to the cottage while he was in the bathroom and within a span of five or ten minutes killed Meredith.

ETA: Just realized the whole perjury thing makes no sense. They already know he lied with his original story since it's not the same as the prosecution's theory so what does it matter if he changes it?

SMK · Jun 21, 2011

Malkmus said:
This where things could get crazy. If Rudy is cross-examined about AK and RS's involvement that night he might be forced to explain a highly contrived scenario in which Amanda and Raf came over to the cottage while he was in the bathroom and within a span of five or ten minutes killed Meredith.

Right, I think that therein lies the hope of the defense: To make Rudy sound ridiculous and dishonest through a frontal attack. I just wish I knew if they were allowed to bring up that night, or if they must limit to Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello's stories.

dgfred · Jun 21, 2011

Malkmus said:
This where things could get crazy. If Rudy is cross-examined about AK and RS's involvement that night he might be forced to explain a highly contrived scenario in which Amanda and Raf came over to the cottage while he was in the bathroom and within a span of five or ten minutes killed Meredith.

ETA: Just realized the whole perjury thing makes no sense. They already know he lied with his original story since it's not the same as the prosecution's theory so what does it matter if he changes it?

Or he may just shout out that he met AK, then went to the cottage and her and RS killed Meredith... and it was ALL her fault. What then?

If the judge doesn't allow questions except regarding the inmate's testimony then he might not have to worry about perjury.

Nova · Jun 21, 2011

dgfred said:
I would say 'so what' to that if I was sentenced to 26 years in prison but was innocent.

Maybe, but you would say "so what" as they carried you from the courtroom (in the U.S. or U.K.).

I'm sure AK's lawyers will advise her on what to do. No doubt there are studies, conventional wisdom, etc., on the relative benefits and drawbacks of speaking on one's own behalf.

dgfred · Jun 21, 2011

Nova said:
Maybe, but you would say "so what" as they carried you from the courtroom (in the U.S. or U.K.).

I'm sure AK's lawyers will advise her on what to do. No doubt there are studies, conventional wisdom, etc., on the relative benefits and drawbacks of speaking on one's own behalf.

They really should have done a better job with her testimony and wardrobe IMO if so, long before now.

Nova · Jun 21, 2011

Malkmus said:
This where things could get crazy. If Rudy is cross-examined about AK and RS's involvement that night he might be forced to explain a highly contrived scenario in which Amanda and Raf came over to the cottage while he was in the bathroom and within a span of five or ten minutes killed Meredith.

ETA: Just realized the whole perjury thing makes no sense. They already know he lied with his original story since it's not the same as the prosecution's theory so what does it matter if he changes it?

It may be the difference between claiming he lied and proving he lied when he gives a conflicting statement. Or (to take the most cynical view) it may just be that they are "overlooking" the previous perjury as long as he tells the story they want.

Nova · Jun 21, 2011

dgfred said:
They really should have done a better job with her testimony and wardrobe IMO if so, long before now.

You may think it would have made a difference what she wore or what she said.

I'm not at all convinced.

dgfred · Jun 21, 2011

Nova said:
You may think it would have made a difference what she wore or what she said.

I'm not at all convinced.

No, not a difference in the end... but it was 'odd' IMO.

dgfred · Jun 21, 2011

Jools has done it again SMK... give it a look.

SMK · Jun 21, 2011

dgfred said:
Jools has done it again SMK... give it a look.

Okie.

SMK · Jun 21, 2011

dgfred said:
Jools has done it again SMK... give it a look.

You mean this one posted by Jools?:

Here is the long blond hair found in victim's left hand:

and I received:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. Please register or log in.

:razz:

Malkmus · Jun 21, 2011

SMK said:
You mean this one posted by Jools?:

and I received:

:razz:

It's a picture of the "blonde hair" collected from Meredith's body. Massei explains this in his report:

[196] "As for what appeared to be hairs found on the victim's body, examined under a microscope, they appeared to be strands of wool and gave no results".

Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics